SHARBATI DEVI Vs. KRISHNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed to impugn the order dated March 5, 1993, passed by Shri S.K. Sarvaria, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by which he dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was filed in eviction petition No. E-435 of 1982 pending between respondents I to 4 and respondent No. 5. The eviction petition is being contested by respondent No. 5, Smt. Kunti Devi, and the above said application was filed by the present petitioner when the case was- at the stage of final arguments and the parties had already closed their defence.

(2.) The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that it was moved by the petitioner to delay the disposal of the eviction petition, which was at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner alleged in para 5 of the application that she was the widow of Shri Mool Chand and has lived in the premises after the death of her husband as a co-tenant and never surrendered the possession or the tenancy rights. Therefore, she has every right, interest and title in the premises in dispute. The Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion after appreciation of facts that having resided in the premises since long, there is a presumption that she must be aware of the litigation pending since long. The petitioner must also be aware of the earlier eviction proceedings between respondents 1 to 4 and Shn 0m Parkash, son of the petitioner. She did not care to approach the Court to be impleaded as a party and in this view, she shall be deemed to have surrendered her rights, if any, assuming that the tenanted premises were originally let to Shri Mool Chand, the husband of the petitioner and not to her deceased son, 0m Parkash.

(3.) . The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended before me that the present application has been filed in accordance with law and the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as a plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence may be necessary inorder to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added: This is permissible the provisions of law as contained in Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code . He has cited in this regard the judgment of this Courtas reported in GurtnaujSaranBalujav.Mrs.JoyceC. Salim and Others AIR 1990 Delhi 13 and unreported judgment of Jaspal Singh,J. in C.M.(M)335 / 93 Shri Sandeep Shankar Mishra v. Sh. Kanutljit Malhotra & Others decided on September 28, 1993.